Banking on Bitcoin (2016) Movie Script

1 I really like it down here. I live literally right by the world trade center. I walk home. I live above it, actually. My ankle bracelet. Tells the government where I am every second of the day, any time of the day. But it's gonna come off when I go to prison, I think. I mean, I don't think I'm wearing this in prison, so... That's what the plan is for that. Closing numbers on the markets today, at one point, the market fell as if down a well. It was an historic day, with wall street shaken to its very foundation. And even the health of the most trusted firms are now being called into question. We have former secretaries of treasury who go from government to wall street pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars. In 2008, I became somewhat obsessed with the role that money itself played in the crisis and the role that governments and banks played in money, and why was it that our money was controlled by central banks? If something new happens, is the government likely to give it a nod or at least ignore it for a while, or is the government likely to come down and try to crush it because they're afraid of anything new and different? This is a monetary revolution. Bitcoin is the honest currency. Okay, this past week we've been talking about money. I'm gonna ask everybody what you think money is. Can you give me some answers now? Money is, like, paper and you can, like, buy stuff with it. So you have to have, like, four quarters for a dollar. You need money to buy your house, like, food, water, oxygen... Not oxygen. Money is basically just an accounting system. It is a way of recording who owns what, who has what, who owes what to whom. That is all money really is. And you needed somebody who could stand as the central issuer, somebody who was the trusted third party, someone who could guarantee that the money was real. And for hundreds of years now, we have had governments issue money. Again, money is just an accounting system. That's what bitcoin is. Bitcoin is really just an accounting system. It is a way of recording transactions, recording value, and it does it digitally, so you and I can send it to each other directly, and everything is recorded in the open ledger. By monitoring and updating that ledger, in a collective, consensus-based system, you do away with the need for somebody in the middle having to be that sort of repository of all the information. And that's what gets away from the fees, the inefficiencies, and ultimately the potential for corruption and risk that come with centralizing information in that way. What it does is it takes that trusted third party function and it automates it. It puts it into an open ledger that is put online that is there for anybody to see, so that every bitcoin is accounted for, so that you know that you're not getting a counterfeit bitcoin. It's kind of remarkable that this idea of bitcoin was launched just a few weeks after lehman brothers went bankrupt and the whole system nearly collapsed. And the problems that cropped up in the crisis were very much a part of the writings of satoshi nakamoto. I think what the crisis showed is that the existing system had some major flaws. It wasn't working and people were hungry for some sort of alternative. I discovered bitcoin's power when I understood for the first time that it was not controlled by a central company or a central person. Because I knew that meant it couldn't be shut down. And if it can't get shut down, all it needs is to do something useful, and it will become more and more adopted and as the value grows, people will find more and more uses for it. The beauty of bitcoin is, it's easily transferrable, it's anonymous. And by 2140 there's gonna be 21 million, and that's the cap. There's only x amount of gold. There's only x amount of bitcoin. Before, if you wanted to send something of value across the Internet, you had to get somebody else involved. You had to have a credit card company or PayPal, or maybe a bank involved in the transaction. The promise of bitcoin is that you're directly sending this currency to another person and then the bitcoin network performs the function that normally PayPal or a bank or your credit card company would perform. Bitcoin really puts the control back in the hands of everybody. Everybody who's participating in the bitcoin system is controlling how it works. If you want to look for the Genesis of cryptocurrency, it was the cypherpunk movement, you know, growing out of a kind of a love of the Internet and its possibilities. The discovering of cryptography and imagining that you could give birth to a new world, really, out of the Internet. A world that lives outside of the nation-state, and outside the structures of power and the hierarchies that are associated with that. These people had talked about the need and the possibility for a digital currency that was anonymous or could be anonymized, using cryptography. The cypherpunks that emerged in the early '90s were hyper-concerned about privacy, about personal Liberty, and a lot of people had come up with their own systems. Some of them came very close to happening. The one that probably came the closest was digicash from David chaum. Privacy of payments is actually essential for democracy. The reason is not because you need to be able to make private payments in order to express yourself, but rather that in order to inform yourself, you may need to purchase information and that's the thing that allows you to have opinions worth expressing. Although I wouldn't say David chaum was a cypherpunk, he definitely inspired the cypherpunk movement. It's as if the cypherpunks kind of came upon David chaum's tools, like the technology of some alien species, and they only took the weapons. They were most interested in the ones that could be used to disempower the government and empower individuals. The break between him and the cypherpunks came when he realized he would need existing institutions to help him with it, so he started talking to governments, he started talking to banks. He was very close to having this thing happen in the late '90s, and nobody was really prepared for this outside of the cypherpunk movement. People it seemed like had almost sort of given up on the project. Other than a few experiments here and there, by hal Finney, Nick szabo, the conversation around this really died down. And then all of a sudden it came back to life after the financial crisis, and you had people going back to those experiments in the 1990s and looking at new ways of putting those ideas together. Nick szabo, in 2006, had just finished up a mid-life stint at law school, and if you look Nick's writing around the financial crisis that is really revived his interest in these ideas that, you know, he had been working on in the 1990s with privacy and contracts and the problems of governments and other trusted third parties. And he brought bit gold back into the conversation. So hal Finney came up with his own system. Adam back has hashcash, wei dai has b money, szabo has bit gold. So what satoshi did in 2008, was satoshi took a lot of these ideas and made them work. He created an encryption-based protocol... It's not really a currency... Utilizing a ledger called the blockchain, allowing for many kinds of transactions to occur. Contracts, all kinds of things can be built into the blockchain. And it does this through a system of consensus building where multiple computers all participate in the management of the blockchain ledger, a kind of digital document, if you will, that keeps track of all the payments. I understand it's something that is instantaneous online and it can go from one country to the other and you know, they can have their money. Well, I never heard of it until Nancy called me and mentioned digital currency and I'm thinking she must have been in the bottle this morning or something. Digital currency, oh. What, what? You know. But they say it's for people who don't have bank accounts. I can't understand. If you have one coin, it's... Let's say it's worth $150. What do you do, give the number or something to the... Say, the grocery store person, and then they subtract it? How do you know? How do you make change? How do you know what you have left or what you've spent? You can have the money supply controlled by a computer. That's all bitcoin really is. The key point here is that this a distributed ledger. There is no central server. All the other ledgers that we have, all the banking ledgers, all company ledgers, they all sit and reside inside that company, which means they have one point of attack. They can be hacked. Jp Morgan was hacked by, you know, the cyberthieves not so long ago. Home depot, target, we've had all these companies get hacked, precisely because there's one central repository of information. The bitcoin ledger resides, on, you know, thousands of computers. You can't hack that. Every single transaction is recorded, and once it is recorded in the blockchain, it is there, it is permanent. It cannot be altered. It cannot be changed, so that you can read it. Now the identities of the people are encrypted. The wallets are encrypted, so you don't know who is spending the money, but you know that every single bitcoin out there has a history, you know where it's been, you know the different addresses it's gone between. The most important pieces of the bitcoin infrastructure are the miners. These are the computers that are tasked with maintaining the ledger of the blockchain to verify the information, to update it, to make sure that it is trustworthy. So how do we incentivize them to do so? As they are going through the process of confirming transactions, they are simultaneously being subjected to a very, very difficult computing test. The bitcoin core protocol is forcing them to look for a number. All of these miners are ultimately competing to be the one that receives that payout every ten minutes. But really that's the secondary component. They're really being rewarded with bitcoin, but what is the more important task is the validation and verification of transactions and the maintaining of the ledger. Bitcoin, in being the first to achieve this holy grail of decentralized value exchange that transfers that process of trust to a collective agreement around a body of independent computers who are compelled by an incentive system to maintain that consensus and affirm the information to be correct is incredibly liberating because it means that we can do it without all these intermediaries in all these different realms. The most important thing behind bitcoin is not the currency. The key factor is the blockchain. Nobody expected this. You know, in 2008, very few people cared about it. It was just the computer scientists and the sort of code geeks that were really interested. All of my communication with satoshi was ever via either the bitcoin talk forums, which, all of that communication is... Public, or private forum messages or private emails. Satoshi was always all business. It was just always about the code. My very message to satoshi, I asked him, "so, is satoshi your real name? What have you done before? Can you tell me a little bit about yourself?" And he just ignored that completely. But came back and said, "you know, great to have more experienced programmers helping out with the project." You know, "here's a couple of problems that need to be solved. Maybe you can help solve them." In 2011, I was into bitcoin sort of just as a hobby. I didn't really know what to do in it yet. I was trying to meet everyone I could, figure out what projects would be cool to work on. I met Roger ver sort of in August of that year and a few months later, he recommended to this guy, Charlie shrem, who started bitinstant that the Charlie should hire me as the head of marketing for bitinstant. Bitcoin is cash with wings. It's the ability to be able to take a local transaction and do it globally, and that's why bitcoin is gonna overturn the financial infrastructure. Bitcoin is like the largest socioeconomic experiment the world has ever seen. Our conversations would range from you know, the mundane and practical, like how the hell are we gonna get another bank account since our current bank account's probably gonna get shut down any day now? To very high-minded, aspirational ones, like, is this actually gonna change the world in a good way? Are we just a bunch of crazy people who don't know what the hell we're talking about, or are we actually starting to initiate an industry which, in hindsight, will look obvious to everyone, but, you know, right now does not? Charlie shrem was, at that stage, a fairly high-profile figure in the bitcoin community. The vice chairman of the bitcoin foundation and you know, one of these bitcoin millionaires who'd made a lot of money very quickly. And really played an important role in the infrastructure of managing the movement of funds around the system in that early rudimentary phase. 632 bid! 654 offer in the New York cash market for bitcoin. Buyers right now will pay $632 cash on the spot. Who's next for the bitcoin? You want to know what bitcoin is? You know what I prefer? I prefer dollars. If you want to go on down to 40 broad, right next door to the stock exchange there, to the New York bitcoin center, you can buy and sell all the time. - You have a table in the middle. - Yeah. Just one small table, round. And I have flowers, like a flower arrangement. - A very nice flower arrangement. - Bitcoin flowers? Bitcoin flowers. Bitcoin flowers would be white Lily, purple and orange. Just right here, three colors. We're putting together the first bitcoin center here in New York City, right next door to the New York stock exchange bitcoin is a new space, and many of the rules and regulations haven't been imposed yet. But we will open one day soon, after the lawyers do their job, a live digital currency exchange. What's happening here is a fusion between wall street and bitcoin, hopefully. Satoshi seemed to acknowledge that it would be hard for bitcoin to develop in any way in which it wasn't interacting with the regular economy of dollars and Euros. The problem with exchanges is that they took you back to this old world that bitcoin was really trying to get away from. As soon as you move back to an exchange, you're moving back to a world in which some third party has all this personal data on you, has all of your money, has all of the security vulnerabilities, and really has none of those strengths that bitcoin was designed to provide. Jed mccaleb created mt. Gox, essentially on a lark one night because he couldn't buy bitcoins as quickly as he wanted to. And interestingly, he did it by starting with a url that he'd previously used to run magic card trading sites. So you get an idea about where somebody's ideas are coming from and how really kind of rudimentary some of them were. Jed essentially threw this site together, and put it online without too much thought. Jed essentially sold it to the first person he found. Who was mark karpeles, a French guy who was living in Tokyo. He really knew very little about mark when he decided to sell it to him. And once he took it over, it began growing much more quickly than mark was expecting or was prepared for. There are 21 million bitcoins programmed into the system that are going to be released. It's a set number, but within that, every single bitcoin can be divided up into a hundred million different pieces so there's room for it to expand as the use expands, especially in the emerging markets, in the developing world. That is really the most interesting place to see where this thing goes. So in my pocket I have a hundred trillion Zimbabwe dollars from the reserve bank of Zimbabwe, just as a reminder of what happens if our governments screw up our money. You know, Zimbabwe's a good example of a government that lost the trust of their people, and they lost the trust of their people by printing too much money and causing runaway hyperinflation. So I think you will see people in other parts of the world who've experienced hyperinflation who've experienced bank failures. I think those will be the kind of people who are looking for something... Something new, right? They're willing to take the risk. A lot of us take the capacity to send money to others, receive money, store money and do it electronically these days for granted because we are amongst the lucky 50% or so of the world that have bank accounts. But 2.5 billion adults in the world do not have access to bank accounts. A technology like bitcoin, cryptocurrency, has the capacity to bring those people into the financial system, to give them this power to effectively have what you could argue is a bank in their cell phone, a bank in their pocket. Really could open up commerce to a lot of people who are currently excluded from it. Somebody who is maybe working in one country and, you know, they want to send money back home. And right now, like, western union is a big way that people do remittances. From a western union perspective, we serve clients in many different locations around the globe, and primarily for remittances. Western union serves typically an unbanked customer, a customer who is either a migrant worker, or an individual who doesn't feel comfortable in the financial services sector. And the problem with remittances is they're really expensive. So if I'm sending $100 back home, I may end up spending $5.00 or $10.00 just on fees to get that money back to my family. That's a huge percentage if you're poor and working. So since bitcoin doesn't care about borders, I could just send bitcoin to another country, and if my family in that other country has some way of spending that bitcoin or has some way of trans... Of exchanging that bitcoin into the local currency, then it's just quicker and cheaper and more convenient. And a lot of people think that remittances will be one of the really big first uses for bitcoin. The one challenge there is we deal with you know, at our company, 750 transactions, peak, a second. And those happen instantly. If you look at a blockchain, you have to wait for verifications, and if you do a recent test, it takes about 15 minutes for every transaction to be validated by the network. That doesn't scale, so it has its challenges as well. Wikileaks, which solicits and publishes secrets and suppressed material from whistleblowers around the world, has been under cyber attack from governments that want to shut it down. PayPal is the latest business to break ties with wikileaks, but the whistle-blowing website dedicated to publishing classified government documents still continues to seek funding, while crossing out PayPal as one method of payment. In order to insure our future survival, wikileaks is now forced to temporarily suspend all publishing operations in order to direct all our resources into fighting the blockade and raising funds. The wikileaks scandal seemed to provide an opportunity for bitcoin. At the time, the big banks and credit cards stopped processing payments for wikileaks, and some people thought that bitcoin would provide a way to send donations to wikileaks. You could certainly see in the hubbub around wikileaks that satoshi was still somebody who was very paranoid about the government, and the government coming in and taking too close a look at the bitcoin project. And you could also see that satoshi, I think, realized at this point that bitcoin was still young software and the kinks hadn't been worked out yet. In, I think, late 2010, he asked me if it'd be okay if he put my email address on the bitcoin. Org home page, 'cause he had been the primary contact for people. And I said, "sure." He went ahead and changed the web page, but what he did is he left his name there, but he took away his email address. And so it was just me and my email address who was suddenly getting all of the attention. I think that was satoshi's way of kind of saying, "you're the leader of the project now." There was one particular email where he told me that he was gonna step away from the project and do something else. He never told me what else he's gonna do or that he is doing. I had just been invited to give a talk at the CIA. And I told satoshi that I accepted the invitation to go speak at the CIA. After he sent that email to satoshi telling him that he was planning on going to the CIA, he never heard from satoshi again, and that was essentially the last time anybody heard from satoshi. You very quickly get caught up in the question of who is satoshi nakamoto? Where did this come from? Who is this person? I mean, this is the 2000s. Information is out there, everything. Everyone knows everything about everybody. How can there possibly be a person that nobody knows who this guy is? But there is a person... At least I think it's a person. It might be a group... Who nobody knows who this guy is. And he kind of appears out of nowhere in 2008 on these cryptography email lists, with this system called bitcoin. He's very active in the early years, there's a lot of back and forth with him communicating with people. It seemed like most people kind of wrote him off as kind of like a delusions-of-grandeur kind of scheme. Hal Finney, on the other hand, seemed to be really interested right from the beginning. He was a crypto-idealist. Like, he was not as kind of cynical as many of the other cypherpunks so he got really into this. He started talking to satoshi nakamoto, who he said seemed like some young Japanese American coder. Hal Finney was the first guy to work with nakamoto. He was a cryptographer. Soon as nakamoto released it, he was one of the first people to email him back and say, "hey, this is interesting. I'd like to work with you." And in the first weeks of bitcoin he worked with him back and forth setting up the system. And satoshi nakamoto ended up sending hal Finney the first ever bitcoin transaction. Any discussion of satoshi's identity has to go back to the fact that bitcoin was based on this small number of projects back in the 1990s that only a handful of people knew about, like hashcash and bit gold and b money, and so you end up with a pretty small group of people who would have known about these projects. People though chaum, David chaum, was, you know... Everybody in the cypherpunk movement at one point or another, they've said, "well, he must have been satoshi." They've all come out and denied it. Probably somebody who started out in the '90s, in California, with the cypherpunks. Somebody who was very, very good at cryptography who understands encryption, and has done a wonderful job of just separating bitcoin from anything that can identify him. I think for bitcoin's sake, that continuing anonymity of satoshi has ended up being a really good thing, because people who have gotten involved in it have been able to write their own ideas and dreams onto this technology, and there was nobody there to say, "no, that's not what I meant." In the early, early days, the first group was really just a bunch of more or less tech-minded coders. Then you had the libertarians come on board, who saw it through a political lens, I'm excited to be a little bit of a part of it with allowing and accepting bitcoin. And then you had these two groups working together and they overlapped too, and the timing was very good because the existing system was in utter disrepair. It was like a match to a pile of wood with gasoline poured on top of it. And the whole thing kind of really goes viral and takes off, and then you have the suits, the vc money, and it was very small at first, just a couple of guys out in silicon valley who ran into bitcoin guys at coffee houses and you started having this meshing of conversations. Once silicon valley gets on board, that whole dynamic starts to take off. So now you have the tech-minded coders, the libertarians, the counter-culture people, the vc, silicon valley, and you have this entire great mishmash of people coming together. You had a network effect. The more people that got involved, the stronger the network got, and the more it grew and it really started growing on itself. And in 2013 especially, you literally see this thing mushroom. The thing was just growing, growing and growing and growing as more and more people got involved. I think most bitcoin companies at the time knew that a big part of the market for bitcoins was people buying drugs on silk road who needed bitcoins to do that. The big bang moment for bitcoin was the silk road. What Ross ulbricht did by creating the silk road was he took this by no means common but usable cryptocurrency called bitcoin and he married it with a streamlined, workable user interface that was a free market that could sell anything. What would happen if people were really free truly free to trade what they wanted to? Ross did have an extremely radical libertarian viewpoint, and really wanted to experiment with using technology to create free markets for people. What Ross ulbricht did is a combination of Tor and bitcoin. That was the "aha" moment that Ross must have had. The silk road was basically the fruition of all the cypherpunk dreams, the crypto-anarchists' utopia that they had imagined in the '90s, you know, was real now. This was a perfectly, in theory, anonymous website, with perfectly, in theory, anonymous money used to by any contrabands imaginable. The silk road website is a particular headache for authorities. It's a anonymous online marketplace where people sell drugs that are posted to customers all over the world. Cyber investigators, you know, when there's a crime can kind of trace you back because you have an ip address. It's like a telephone number, so if you call another computer that ip address is tracked. On Tor, that's taken away, because your information hops from computer to computer to computer so there's no way to trace you back to your original one. Tor is an anonymous system, so if you use the Tor browser, which it has a browser. You can go to Tor and download their browser, you can browse with some degree of security. So that's great for plugging your banking information into a site so you don't get hacked. The other component of Tor, which has similar uses, is called Tor hidden services. Tor hidden services is actually, to put it simply, a url that doesn't have ".Com" on the end of it. It has ".Onion." And that is its own little space where you can create websites and you could freely transact without oversight or regulation. People put websites on there that are outside of law enforcement's view. There's hackers for hire, there's malware, there's credit card dump services there's a whole bunch of them. Chris tarbell has ended up being, in some ways, the most important FBI digital crime investigator of the last few years. He was the one who took down anonymous, essentially. So we decided to start looking at some of the services on Tor, and silk road being one them, other cases, they would hit Tor, and they would kind of throw their hands in the air and say "it's Tor, there's not much we can do about it." I found it interesting to kind of take a look at it and tackle it. Bitinstant was basically born because if you wanted to move your dollars into a bitcoin exchange, it takes at least three days. And since the major exchange, mt. Gox, was in Tokyo it could take a week or more. So that's really problematic, and basically Charlie figured out that if you just held a balance of dollars at the exchange, you could go to him and say, "Charlie, I'll give you $100. Will you give me $100 of credit at the exchange?" And you can literally then have your dollars at the exchange in ten seconds as opposed to a week. So that's hugely helpful, especially when bitcoin is so volatile and you need to know exactly what price you're going to get. Charlie was raising capital right as, sort of, I joined. During that process, he came across lots of interested investors who were starting to get a whiff that maybe this bitcoin thing was cool. We had an interesting debate early on about do we invest in bitcoin or bitcoin companies and we sort of decided to do both. More towards investing in actually bitcoin in the asset early days, but also trying to place a few bets in the ecosystem to support the companies, support the entrepreneurs, and see how that went. A few days after they first found out about bitcoin, they were in the bitinstant offices in New York meeting with Erik and Charlie. And Erik and Charlie essentially talked them through bitcoin and answered all of their questions and concerns. What made you invest in bitinstant? There are a lot of companies and exchanges and websites. With respect to bitcoin, regulation is obviously a big question. What you do want is a company that sort of takes that seriously and understands that there's the technology element, there's building the company, and then there's also creating the company that works with regulators. And so that's bitinstant. It's not this sort of completely underground thing? Yeah, Charlie the ceo happens to have been in this space for a long time, so he's sort of on the pulse and the cutting edge. You know, you come out and you say, like, "we want this bitcoin thing to overturn everything," but at the same time we have to be compliant and you have to know your customer. You have to know every single customer no matter what. Even if they're transferring a dollar or $1,000. And how reasonable is that? The term "money laundering" was invented by banks, and knowing your customer shouldn't be this complicated, expensive thing. And you shouldn't treat everyone like a criminal in the beginning. They really wanted us involved. People were really friendly, because it benefits you to onboard more people in, so bitcoin's always been this very friendly community and it's also... in some ways it's self-serving that way, but we were there for the right reasons. At the time, bitinstant was the big company other than mt. Gox. It was the way that most Americans were able to buy bitcoins. Here it is. So bitinstant was located right there. I think it's the one that now says "bling." It was a whirlwind six months. Going from total obscurity with no money to becoming one of the hot startups of bitcoin. But almost as soon as the twins made their investment in the company, it began falling apart. The twins had a much more practical approach to bitcoin and bitinstant. They wanted to see the company making money and making as much money as it could as quickly as it could. They saw early on that it would be regulated, that it wasn't gonna be this big, and have no one be interested in regulating it. So they feared that all kinds of regulators would come in at all different angles and tie the thing up in a complete morass where nothing would ever get done. So they wanted to help drive the regulation so that whatever regulation would be there would work and would not end up being a complete dead end for bitcoin. That strategy is smarter, from purely a business perspective, but I'm not in this purely from a business perspective. I am in this for business and because I'm trying to change the world and make it better, and building bitcoin companies and begging for regulation that matches exactly the banking regulation that has caused so many problems I feel like is counterproductive. For the most part, bitinstant was actually taking steps to make sure that people weren't using the service for illegal purposes, but Charlie made the mistake in dealing with btcking of acknowledging that he knew what btcking was doing, and that he was acquiring bitcoins to sell them to silk road customers. In this case, Charlie worked with the guy and wrote emails that essentially acknowledged he knew what this guy was up to. That stunning arrest of the drug kingpin who goes by the name "dread pirate Roberts" and appears to have cornered the Internet drug market. His real name is Ross ulbricht and his website, silk road, is packed with products like cocaine and heroin. The payment system is all through bitcoins, which is basically digital currency, not backed up by any international banks, not backed up by any us banks, but simply based on the confidence of the users who exchange these bitcoins computer to computer. There's a reason why the case was tried in New York, in the Southern district, and largely that was because of bitcoin. Ross was caught in San Francisco. The silk road servers were out of the country. So why was Ross's case tried in the Southern district of New York where most of the financial regulations cases are dealt with? Where the district attorney, preet bharara has been all over bitcoin. Where Charles schumer, the senator, has been all over bitcoin. Ross ulbricht's case is a bitcoin case. There's absolutely no denying it. The level of threat that the silk road posed to the marketplace, to wall street, whether it's a perceived threat or an actual threat, was humongous. And the idea that somebody could create a marketplace where you could freely transact without oversight or regulation had to be dealt a massive and public blow. Bitcoin kind of monetized that anonymous part of the Internet and made it possible to trade in things that the federal government doesn't want you to trade in. Law enforcement moves slowly but it's a big heavy wheel that grinds finely, so, you know, someone was running a hidden service, and now they're in prison for life. They were playing hardball. It was very evident that their intention, as the judge herself said in her sentencing, was to make an example out of Ross, was to say to all of you people using bitcoin, to all of you people who want to tangle with unregulated marketplaces and technologies and open source cryptocurrencies, "we will throw the book in its entirety at you if you do this." We seized a whole bunch of bitcoins. And in order to sell those bitcoins off or go to an exchange, you have to fit within federal law and state law. There's not really an exchange that could handle that, that met those regulations at the current time, so it had to be handled through auction. You know anything about bitcoins? There's an article in "the wall street journal" today - on bitcoins. - - Really? Right here, if you want to read it. It is? Digital currency, did you see that? Wow, oh! "Digital currencies will disrupt global finance, transform the way we pay for things, and just maybe, make the world a fairer place." From what I've read on the computer, they have had some problems. - Yeah. - Yeah. The reason is because you can't track it. Well, I think I don't like this idea at all. When we saw the silk road shut down, a lot of people said, "bitcoin's nothing but illegal drugs on the Internet. That's what it is." And they would point at the silk road and say, "look here at all the stuff that's happening here." And I think when you saw the silk road shut down and bitcoin transaction volume take a tiny little dip, and then keep going up, you know, I think that was a great event to point at and say, "it really wasn't about that. It really isn't about that." It's a tiny little part of the economy. I guess in the last week I've really started hearing about bitcoin. Recently I heard a scenario after the FBI had seized a bunch of bitcoins due to illegal transactions, now they're gonna be auctioning them off like they would a private yacht for, you know, from some drug dealer. So that, in a way, legitimizes the use of it as a currency. Looks like it's the first live bitcoin exchange on wall street. Looks that way. Yeah, so one for 950. - Buying or selling? - -Selling. 550 on a thousand... Right now we were looking at the open interest at the floor of the bitcoin exchange. There's different exchanges that are online, that will present at the bidding house, but there's no true open outcry exchange. Buyers and sellers coming together in an open, clear, transparent, honest way. - Gox is the highest one. - Why don't we call it 900? 900... There's my transaction, probably the first two transactions of the day. It's really not about the money, it's about being involved, and I think there's a lot more people gonna follow me. Charlie shrem, 24 years old, arrested today and charged with engaging in money laundering shrem enabled people to transfer money from bitcoin to cash via his company called bitinstant. Now the other point that the DEA is making is that shrem bought drugs online at silk road and that he knew silk road was a trafficking website. And we know the winklevoss twins who obviously were featured in the movie about Facebook. They're actually investors in shrem's company. Yeah, you know, a lot of people are very excited by this idea. They like the idea that you can have a currency that is not tied to any kind of central bank, but at the same time, I mean, think about it. If you're in the federal government, you don't like the idea that people could effectively use another form of cash to buy things that they shouldn't be buying online. With me, it wasn't all my customers. It was one customer, out of about 100,000 customers. This was one customer. One single... And I made that case in my sentencing. I said, "your honor, this was one customer." It happened that I was literally coming home from Amsterdam. I was in my sweatshirt. I was still stoned. I didn't know what was going on. Charlie did not know when to shut up, and that ended up getting him in trouble, and probably led to the end of his company. But they got me under the patriot act, and it's money laundering because I knew that the money I was taking was eventually possibly going to be used for drug trafficking. Now drug trafficking is not buying drugs, it's selling drugs. I didn't help the drug seller. I helped the guy buy drugs. But I never went to trial because... And I pled guilty because who wins at trial, you know? Like this guy, silk road, he's gonna go to life. In trial, all he needed to get was a lady whose son died from a cocaine overdose and I would've... the jury would've convicted me right there. So essentially Charlie was selling bitcoins to a guy who was selling bitcoins to people who were putting drugs into their own bodies. And for this, Charlie was charged with crimes that could've put him in jail for 20 years. That's what the prosecutors were shooting for. We have banks that have atms on every street corner in America, and those banks know very well that that cash is getting used for drugs. And yet, that's fine. They're allowed to do that. No one gets in trouble. But Charlie sells bitcoin to a guy who sells bitcoin to someone who uses drugs, and he goes to jail. He was an entrepreneur that started building this industry, built services that people found useful, when bankers almost destroyed the world economy and none of them got in trouble whatsoever. And here we have this 23-year-old kid, he goes to jail because he started building an alternative. Over the last six months, our agency has been conducting an extensive inquiry into virtual currency. The information we're going to gather in this fact-finding effort will allow us to put forward, during the course of 2014, a proposed regulatory framework for virtual currency firms operating in New York. Yesterday, we had serious criminal conduct come to light involving virtual currency as a vehicle for money laundering drug trafficking, and other major felonies. Right now, the regulation of virtual currency industry is still akin to a virtual wild west. That's why we're evaluating whether our agency should issue a so-called bitlicense, specifically tailored to virtual currencies. I think people who imagine a very powerful utility, like bitcoin that would somehow escape regulation entirely are either naive or extreme optimists. Bitcoin is a battle of ideas, and it forces the issue of whether people should be as free in their handling of money as they are in their handling of speech or religion or relationships with each other. If you want to have this thing go mainstream, you're going to have to have the regulators, the lawmakers weigh in on it. One of the first ones who really took an interest was Benjamin lawsky. Very important regulator in the financial world. And in January, 2014, holds these public hearings because he wants to come up with a license for bitcoin companies. We believe that putting in place appropriate regulatory safeguards for virtual currencies will ultimately be beneficial to the long-term strength of the industry itself. Lawsky was essentially given the opportunity to write the rules for this whole new industry from scratch. The first question is the obvious one that's on everyone's mind. Sort of unexpected yesterday, but with the arrests we saw obviously that's put a bit of a cloud hanging over the industry right now, and so how do each of you react to what we saw yesterday, what it means for bitcoin or virtual currency and its future? I think it further supports that bad guys are gonna do bad things, and they're gonna use whatever technology is available to them. But I view it as, if the allegations are true and they're convicted, the system works. Are people still doing bad things with bitcoin? Sure. Is the majority of the bitcoin activity vice? Not a chance. So I think the issue you raise is one that people like to write about, the media likes to write about it, makes great headlines. You get a lot of clicks. You can sell a lot of ads, but I think it's in the rearview mirror. There are some people in the bitcoin community from the libertarian side of things that want government to just leave it alone. Would you say regulation is both inevitable but more importantly, actually ultimately going to be crucial for the survival of virtual currency? Sounds like a terrible idea to me. Just understand what we're trying to do with bitcoin. We're trying to create a world where transactions can move globally for free, okay? And making these companies hire you know, some outsourced compliance firm is a bad idea. It'd be great, in any industry, if you could just open the door and let folks run out and give it a shot. We may choose not to invest in a company if they can't get licensed by you. If the choice ultimately is between preventing money laundering on the one hand, and I probably shouldn't even use the word "money laundering" 'cause it's too nice a word, frankly. Money laundering is the facilitation of all kinds of horrific crimes that I think everyone in this room never wants to see happen. Acts of terrorism, funding rogue nations, etc., all take place through massive money laundering. Now the choice for the regulator is, permit money laundering on the one hand, or permit innovation on the other. We're always going to choose squelching the money laundering first. I agree that I don't think anybody wants money laundering. When we got a... First saw bitcoin you know, about a year and a half, almost two years ago. I don't think anybody would deny that it was a bit of a wild, wild west, because there was no regulation. There was no framework to evaluate the asset, evaluate companies, determine who was compliant and who was not, and a wild west attracts cowboys. And I don't think anybody here would disagree with the fact that a sheriff would be a good thing. A lot of, I think, the entrepreneurs feel like they have to self-censor. They don't want to come out vocally critical of the regulations. Part of that is maybe 'cause some of them just like regulations, but I think another part of it, some of them just feel like they will get attention of the regulators if they come out against them. Yes, we want them to innovate, but at the same time, we just can't live in a world where we're gonna permit money laundering to go on. I think regulators should give bitcoin some time to grow up. Too much regulation now will just stifle innovation. I think before regulators kind of come in and say, "we're gonna solve all your problems," and then fail to solve all their problems, I think they should give the innovators time to solve those problems. One function of regulation is to make things clearer, so right now bitcoin, because it's so new, is in a state of flux everywhere. The lesson from the Internet is anything that China bans, invest in. And that's a joke, but the U.S. Allows Google to operate here, allows Twitter to operate here, allows bitcoin to operate here, allows Facebook to operate here. Chinese government doesn't allow any of those companies to operate the way they operate in this country, or at all. This is about freedom, ultimately. You know, we're 50 yards from the old world trade center here and I think all of us never want to see anything like that happen again, and it would have been a lot harder for 9/11 to ever have occurred had we had the protections in place that would prevent the movement of massive amounts of money around the globe by people who would want to kill everybody in this room, so I think the key is to not create useless regulation but I think the motives behind a lot of those rules are to ensure we don't miss something again. Since 2001, there's this absurd obsession with terrorism. So any time a regulary gets up and says, "well, bitcoin can be used for terrorism." Well, of course it can. So can anything. So can cell phones and so can the Internet and so can the car. It doesn't mean that we should stifle the growth of those industries just because bad people can use it. This has arguably been the worst week in the cryptocurrency's short life, stunned by the collapse of once-dominant exchange mt. Gox. Now that failed firm's ceo mark karpeles is in hiding. Some 750,000 bitcoins allegedly stolen or lost which accounts for about 6% of the total circulation. By the time mt. Gox went down, it was holding what its customers believed were about a half a billion dollars worth of their bitcoins and the company's bitcoins. It was no longer the largest exchange in the world. But part of what's so amazing is that people kept using it even after there had been numerous incidents in which it was clear that the company was not up to the task of safeguarding the money. And the only reason he survived as long as he did was because in 2013, the price started going up. People kept putting money into it. He had more and more money 'cause the price was going up, but as soon as the price started going down, this is what happened, right? It peaks in late 2013. It starts coming down in 2014. Soon as that price started coming down, it all just tumbled for him. Gox was going to collapse. That it lasted as long as it did was actually kind of a stroke of fate. But its failure was it didn't have the kind of more boring mainstream institutional controls that we require to bring it to the next level. And there's a whole bunch of money missing, and no one knows if they just lost it, it if was stolen from them, if they embezzled it or what, but the important lesson from gox isn't that bitcoin doesn't work. The important lesson from gox is that you don't leave your money with a trusted third party because you can't always trust them. You can only trust them until you can't. This was also a lesson that people were supposed to learn during the financial crisis but they don't seem to have learned it yet. Mark karpeles was a gamer. He was not a finance pro. He really didn't know what he was doing, and he didn't build it. Jed mccaleb built it. He didn't improve upon it. I mean, it lurched from crisis to crisis throughout the entire history. Last year was a terrible year for bitcoin, and an especially terrible year for the foundation, because we had two of the people on our board of directors who had to resign in disgrace, basically. You know, my expertise is technology. My expertise is not figuring out, like, who's trustworthy, who's not, which businesses are gonna succeed, which businesses are gonna fail. After we had held our hearings, we thought we would take six months to nine months, even a year, to draft our initial regulations. This was so complicated that we wanted to really take our time and get it right. What happened was, though, mt. Gox collapsed. And I think that gave us a real renewed sense of urgency, and we realized that if we got regulation right, we could create more confidence in bitcoin, frankly, as opposed to the sort of loss of confidence you saw not only from the silk road case but also from the collapse of mt. Gox. So your sense, though, of the regulators, right now. I assume you've had conversations. The discussions that we've had, I think everybody recognizes the innovation and doesn't want to stifle it. They just want to make sure that there's healthy regulation so it's used in a safe and productive manner. I'm not giving up on New York. New York's giving up on me. I can't even turn on the bitcoin machine. An atm, I can't turn it on. I can't make trades. I can't do anything. There's no cash flow at all. And it's potential regulation. It's regulations I should believe is coming down the pipe. Like, I don't want to do anything that someone's frowning upon right next door to the stock market. They're gonna lock me up. You know, you can't have an exchange. Well, we don't. People meet there and exchange with each other. New York's sitting there on the high horse, and the whole world's waiting on New York to create some fuckin' license. Ultimately lawsky's office brought out the final rules for the bitlicense in the spring of 2015. A lot of companies complained that the regulations were too burdensome for them to operate in New York and still make money. I saw just overnight dozens of companies that were on the verge of launching. They just threw in the towel and said, "we can't afford this." Erik voorhees' new company shapeshift would have had to apply for the bitlicense if it wanted to keep customers in New York. So, in my lap here I have the... The application forms for license to engage in virtual currency business activity, which is a very statist way of saying the bitlicense. The is the application to be approved to do basically what we've all been doing for years now, which is building bitcoin companies in New York. And a lot of stuff in here I personally feel is unethical, so we're not gonna comply with it, which means we have to block new yorkers entirely. And when an entire new industry starts blocking a place like New York that used to be the financial center of the world, hopefully some of those politicians will take notice. The point of it is to, one, make sure there are enough consumer protections; two, make sure we have adequate cybersecurity; three, make sure that the companies are adequately capitalized so they don't collapse upon themselves. You know, you've seen a tug of war between the hard liners and those who are saying, "you know, you've got to have enough space for innovation in here," and the system has come out, I think, probably stronger as a result of that and there's a widespread view amongst certainly the business bitcoin community that some level of regulation gives legitimacy to what they're doing. It gives people confidence in what they're doing. This is an important part of growing up. Ultimately, they're not going to get it right, because no regulation is ever right. But I'm highly confident that whatever happens going forward, the bitlicense will be looked at as a positive development in the evolution of bitcoin because it just removed one of the biggest pieces of uncertainty, which is how is this industry going to be regulated. I think most of us... At least a lot of us... Think that sensible regulation that sets guidelines that makes sure people's money doesn't just go into a black hole that that's a really important thing, that regulation. I'm sure satoshi wouldn't be happy to see this kind of thing, which is not based on the logic and reason that a programmer is used to. I think a lot of developers, understandably so, try to stay out of the political nonsense. It has been one of the biggest mysteries raging across the Internet: Who is satoshi nakamoto? Newsweek published an article claiming the man in these images is the bitcoin founder. The man who created bitcoin, is known as the father of bitcoin, the online currency now worth billions. When you asked him about bitcoin, and he says, "I can't talk about this anymore," he was not referring to bitcoin. But with me, he definitely acknowledged bitcoin. I think at this point now he's saying he was confused by the conversation. Clearly somebody thought that we did this as an act of war against satoshi nakamoto or bitcoin, and I want to be very clear that I certainly never meant it that way. I have nothing to do with bitcoin. It was a monster story. How did they figure it out? Oh, my god, look at this guy that they named. His name is Dorian satoshi nakamoto, living in California, basically hiding in plain sight. It becomes a gigantic media scramble, and then Dorian emerges from his house looking kind of disheveled, looking kind of confused, and says he's not satoshi nakamoto, says he's never heard of bitcoin. He doesn't understand. He had one conversation with Leah. She misunderstood what he said, she took it the wrong way. And you probably would have had to have been a cypherpunk to understand all the elements of it that had already been put together. The odds of it seemed very low to me that it was somebody from completely outside that community who happened to know all these different things and put this together and appear out of nowhere. The day that "newsweek's" story came out naming Dorian nakamoto as the creator of bitcoin, I got this email from an old acquaintance that was titled "what are the odds?" And it laid out the fact that hal Finney lives less than two miles away from the known address of Dorian nakamoto where "newsweek" had found him. And hal Finney is the number two ever user of bitcoin, who received the first bitcoin transaction. He worked on an early prototype of an anonymous currency system. He was a cypherpunk. So how could it be that the purported creator of bitcoin and this known, confirmed, second-ever user of bitcoin, hadn't ever collaborated? That hal Finney, who was less than two miles away from Dorian nakamoto hadn't helped to create bitcoin? Or maybe he really was the creator of bitcoin. Maybe hal Finney was satoshi nakamoto. When you look at the bitcoin white paper, it made reference to a lot of the earlier projects that fed into bitcoin. But it's very notable that the one project it doesn't refer to is Nick szabo's bit gold, which is perhaps the closest precedent and the closest parallel to bitcoin. I mean, bit gold is so close to bitcoin, it's hard not to think that, you know, maybe Nick is satoshi. A lot of people will say "nakamoto must be szabo." "Nakamoto must have been Finney." But I don't think he was trying to leave any breadcrumbs out there for anybody to follow. I told my editor about it. He agreed that "you found satoshi nakamoto." So I got on a plane to Santa Barbara and I drove out to hal Finney's house. But at this stage, he was already completely paralyzed by als, this really awful, debilitating terminal illness that slowly shuts down your body while leaving your mind completely intact. And the time when he started to fade in his physical abilities did roughly coincide with the time that satoshi nakamoto started to disappear. Now maybe the reason that satoshi nakamoto had chosen to fade away was because hal Finney was physically fading. There have been a number of stylometric studies and you see so many of these similarities between satoshi's writings and those of Nick's, including these little things like having two spaces at the beginning of a sentence, and phrases and spellings that nobody else uses. So I talked to hal as much as I could, mostly in a kind of one-way interview because he could really only respond with yes and no answers, and he denied being satoshi nakamoto. You could tell that he was amused by the whole idea that I thought he was satoshi nakamoto. One of the really remarkable things from Nick szabo's writing in those months before bitcoin was publically launched is that Nick, in responding to some comments about a post he had made about bit gold, actually asked the other people who were reading him if anybody wanted to help him code this idea up into real software that could work. It was never turned into a reality, but when you look at bit gold, it's hard not to be struck by the similarities between it and bitcoin. It's possible. Hal could've been the coder. I don't know. You know, this idea that... That hal Finney could've been the kind of ghost coder for bitcoin... I guess it's possible. Other people kind of speculating on reddit or other parts of the Internet thought that maybe hal Finney had used Dorian nakamoto as a patsy. If he were ever traced back to Dorian nakamoto, it seemed like this guy was the creator, and hal Finney would be sort of immunized from it. Everyone else who was involved in the projects leading up to bitcoin has released their communications with satoshi from this period. Nick has avoided doing that, and essentially went silent in those critical months after bitcoin was released. You know, when you talk to people face to face, and they tell you these things, you can get a sense if they're being honest. If hal Finney actually had a secret billion-dollar cache of bitcoins, he wouldn't have been able to lie to me so effectively about it. In the end, the reasons to believe that this was all just a coincidence began to outweigh the coincidence itself. It's almost like an eel. There's something there, you can see it, but as soon as you touch it it just slides right out of your hands and you're left with nothing. Anybody who is of any note in the cypherpunk movement, and even outside of it too, has at one time or another been called satoshi. Hal Finney denied it. Nick szabo denied it. They've all denied it. Maybe one of them is satoshi. Maybe all of them are satoshi. It really is a mystery. That's the original ticker from next door. All right, so we're over here. Bitcoin center, 100 feet from the stock exchange, over here. And, uh... You know, some of you guys took a hit last week, last couple of weeks. Lot of the big guys, they got their foothold in the business that they weren't a part of in the beginning. I don't know what's going on. But, uh, I don't know. I wouldn't write off bitcoin that easy. I know that bitcoin is gonna change the world. It's changing the world already. And we have to stand tall and proud as bitcoiners and early adopters. They don't know anything about new technology, but once it starts making sense, they throw their dollars behind it. You know, unfortunately, early adopters make the roads that we all travel down, and they are usually paved over in the process. The first guy through the door gets shot. You know, but somebody's gotta go through the door, but they're gonna get shot. Charlie shrem, Ross albricht, Julian Assange, they got shot coming through the door. But we're all utilizing the freedoms and technologies afforded to us because they knocked the door down. Hey, Michael. Can I put you on speakerphone for a minute? If I know how. Hey, Michael, can I ask you, where did you buy bitcoins? Yeah. Did you lose... how much... Do you still have them? You put into it. Can you use it? Do I want to buy it? No, not today. Though it is going to be around. Did you ever use it to buy anything? - Michael. No, okay. They should go back to, you know, day one and just start all over. Forget about bitcoin, call it something else. I think it's been so tarnished now with this... With the silk road... You know, I just think, you know, that all that stuff about $400 million disappearing and... you're just not gonna get off the ground. Nobody's gonna... You know, like Warren buffet said, "stay the hell away from it." To put all the cards on the table, I'm gonna be leaving the department in the coming weeks. And if you asked me back when I took this job in 2011 what I thought we'd be working on during my tenure, digital currencies would not have been at the top of the list. So Ben lawsky created this thing call the bitlicense which is New York's attempt to regulate this scary new technology. It's now law. And he has announced that he is leaving government in order to set up his own private consulting firm to help companies navigate financial regulations such as the bitlicense that he created. So we essentially had this beautiful new ecosystem being built, and Ben lawsky comes by, says, "I'm here to protect consumers." He builds a huge wall around the thing, and then he sits outside the gate charging people to get in. This is the very definition of crony capitalism, and, for some reason, Ben lawsky doesn't even see anything wrong with that. I think history will not judge him as favorably as he thinks. So, um, yeah. I've started up my own consulting business. It's been quite interesting. Doing a lot of work in the fintech space, but also doing work with a lot of traditional companies in the financial services world as well. Ben lawsky's team at the dfs that was working on this bitlicense and the bitcoin initiative have all ended up leaving the agency and going to consulting firms that are now working on these issues. Danny alter is going to work for itbit and Dana Syracuse is going to work for the consulting firm k2. Itbit is particularly notable because they were the first to find a way to partner with the dfs to get licensed to open their own bitcoin exchange. When this is over, definitely going to leave New York when I can. Where I'm gonna go, I don't know. I think the bitcoin community in New York is done with. No, it doesn't foster innovation here. It's too difficult to have a bitcoin company. No banks will open up accounts. You have the threat of regulation, and your high-profile arrests like myself and others. No one wants to deal with it. When did you first start digging in on bitcoin? Two, two and half years ago, when I took over the foreign exchange payments business - at jp Morgan. - So you probably had your mt. Gox, bitinstant, you know, Charlie and those guys. It's interesting, almost none of those guys are around anymore. Two years ago at all the major banks, bitcoin was an afterthought. It was kind of a... maybe in a hallway kind of conversation at the water cooler and now, you know, even this week, I met with one of the other major banks. Everyone's got a bitcoin specialist, at least one working group. Kind of teams of people who are trying to figure out how to incorporate the technology into their existing operation. Banks and institutions associated with the financial system are really starting to recognize that the payment system underlying banking could be made more efficient by the application of blockchain technologies. The blockchain technology underlying bitcoin has become something that a lot people are now very, very interested in for all kinds of other uses, whether it's allowing for derivatives to be transferred or securities to be transferred, or all manner of financial instruments to be transferred in complex, interesting ways. I think different companies are going to adopt different strategies. And it's gonna be fascinating to watch companies like digital asset holdings, blythe masters' company, doing very, very interesting work. I didn't become aware of bitcoin in any meaningful sense until 2014, late in the year, and at the time, my perspective was one of skepticism, I would say. Specifically because the storyline that I heard related very much to cryptocurrency as a potential medium of exchange and store of value, which is a valid debate and application, but it doesn't have full extent of the power that the underlying technology has to achieve. Blythe masters is not just any banker. She is this person who I think is really seen as being behind some of the most problematic innovations in the financial industry over the last three decades. Blythe is the one who's essentially given credit for creating the credit default swap which essentially provides a way to bet on the default of a bond, and the credit default swap ended up taking this place at the center of the financial crisis and these bets that banks had made against sub-prime mortgages. Blockchain technology eradicates a significant amount of inefficiency in the system, and reduces costs. It doesn't mean that we are doing away with the need for trust in financial services at all. Bitcoin was designed to find a way to circumvent wall street, and what blythe masters is doing is essentially trying to find ways to bring wall street into bitcoin and make it possible for them to use this technology as well. What the bankers seem to be looking to do at this point is create their own private blockchain, where their computers are powering it. Rather than these anonymous miners, they want control over the system. The banks are looking at this incredibly wide array of ways that they might use this, which include replacing stock exchanges, finding new ways to originate loans, finding new ways to move money between countries, and, of course, that's going back to the original idea of bitcoin, but now it's happening within these financial institutions rather than outside it, as bitcoin had imagined. I have no problem with the banking system and the financial industry co-opting bitcoin, primarily because bitcoin can't really be co-opted. The fact that it's decentralized means no one can control it, no matter who they are or how much money they have. I think it's all good for bitcoin. I think all of the innovation that's happening, both on wall street and in silicon valley I think competition will take care of people who want to try to have a monopoly, or who want to try to charge more than they should for whatever product or service that is happening on the blockchain. It really is as advertised. It really is controlled by all the people who are using it, and it really is designed just to be a more efficient, more fair way of sending value over the Internet. Bitcoin is not neutral. You cannot remove the political component that satoshi implanted in bitcoin from bitcoin. That's what a lot of the people on the wall street side try to do. You cannot neutralize bitcoin. It's impossible. Thankfully, I'm gonna go to a comfy federal prison camp without fences, that has pool tables and a track, and baseball field and decent food, and kind of 100 to 200 people that are white collar. Those guys in prison are the best ones to use bitcoin. They're smart. I'm very excited to talk to them about it. So yes, the vcs are driving this thing right now. They're pouring money into it. They're building these for-profit companies people who have a background outside of bitcoin seeing the value of it and coming to it. But just because they're doing everything they're doing doesn't mean that the libertarians and the utopians have to go away. Bitcoin is open source. You can do whatever you want with it. So they're still there. They're still building their products. They're still building their vision. And if bitcoin goes mainstream and if it gets picked up, even if it's running in the background, there are going to be elements of that and that's kind of what utopia movements always are. The thing that the utopians were dreaming about is not gonna happen the way they expected it, but I do think it is going to filter through and you are gonna see it. You're gonna see it. So you're gonna show me that satoshi nakamoto is you. Yes. Some people will believe, some people won't. And to tell you the truth, I don't really care. But you can say, hand on heart to me, "I am satoshi nakamoto." I was the main part of it. Other people helped me. I'm going to come in front of that camera once, and I will never ever be on a camera ever again for any TV station or any media ever.